the fact that ....

[Atom1995]

Aloha, good morning.
We eat out despite (the fact) that it is snowing.
But for (the fact) that the resue team had came to me, I would have died already.

Can I omit "the fact" above because that-clause is noun already after preposition?
It's seek time.thanks no end.

 

[tedtmc]

Aloha, good morning.
We eat out despite (the fact) that it is snowing.
But(If not) for (the fact) that the resue team had came to (reached)me, I would have died already.

Can I omit "the fact" above because that-clause is noun already after preposition?
It's seek time (it seeks time? it takes time?).thanks no end.

Yes, it can be omitted.
thanks no end - cute but unusual phrase!

 

[bhaisahab]

Yes, it can be omitted.
thanks no end - cute but unusual phrase!

We eat out despite that it is snowing.
If not for that the rescue team had reached me, I would have died already.

Are you suggesting that the above sentences are correct? They are not.

 

[corum]

[STRIKE]If not for that the rescue team had reached me, I would have died already.[/STRIKE]

But for the rescue team, I would have died.
Had it not been for the rescue team, I would have died.

We eat out despite [something]. :tick:
We eat out despite [the weather]. :tick:
We eat out despite [that it is snowing]. :tick:
It depends on [whether we like it]. :tick:

 

[tedtmc]

But for the rescue team, I would have died.
Had it not been for the rescue team, I would have died. We eat out despite [that it is snowing].

These are not correct according to bhaisahad. corum?

 

[corum]

These are not correct according to bhaisahad. corum?

No, my sentences are correct English.

But for the rescue team, I would have died. :tick:
Had it not been for the rescue team, I would have died. :tick:

 

[Tdol]

These are not correct according to bhaisahad. corum?

We eat out despite that it is snowing. :cross:
If not for that the rescue team had reached me, I would have died already. :cross:

Bhaisahab's right- these are both wrong- you can't omit 'the fact'. Corum's corrections work fine.

 

[corum]

We eat out despite that it is snowing. :cross:

despite = prep
that it is snowing = nominal clause

Is it not idiomatic or is it not grammatical? If the latter, why?

 

[sarat_106]

We eat out despite that it is snowing. :cross:

It is wrong because ‘Despite’ as preposition can not join either a nominal or relative clause.

So, “We eat out despite the fact that it is snowing.” Is correct

 

[panicmonger]

It is wrong because ‘Despite’ as preposition can not join either a nominal or relative clause.

So, “We eat out despite the fact that it is snowing.” Is correct

If wh-clause can be correctly used after "despite", just as:
"Despite what you have told me, I couldn't care less"

why not be the same with "that-clause" in which conjunction of "that" is the same as any "wh-words" in wh-clauses.

that, what, where, when, how are all conjunctions in their respective clauses. I still cannot figure the reason out. finger-crossed for somebody's insight. thanks.

 

[corum]

It is wrong because ‘Despite’ as preposition can not join ... a nominal ... clause.

It depends on [whether we like it]. :tick:

What do you say now?

It is wrong because ‘Despite’ as preposition cannot join either a nominal or relative clause.t

I am sure this sentence does not express what you mean.

If your proposition,

‘Despite’ as preposition can not join either a nominal or relative clause,

conveys your thoughts correctly, it means that you do not rule out

Despite’ as preposition can join both a nominal and a relative clause at the same time.,

as being true, which I am sure you wanted to.

Your sentence needs repair, IMO. I suggest that you try this:

‘Despite’ as a preposition can take neither a nominal nor a relative clause as its complement.

 

[panicmonger]

pls bear in mind that this forum is for sharing, no other than this.
I hope everyone can be happy with this forum. thanks.

 

[bhaisahab]

If wh-clause can be correctly used after "despite", just as:
"Despite what you have told me, I couldn't care less"

why not be the same with "that-clause" in which conjunction of "that" is the same as any "wh-words" in wh-clauses.

that, what, where, when, how are all conjunctions in their respective clauses. I still cannot figure the reason out. finger-crossed for somebody's insight. thanks.

Strictly speaking "despite what you have told me" is not really correct, it should be "in spite of what you have told me".

 

[panicmonger]

Strictly speaking "despite what you have told me" is not really correct, it should be "in spite of what you have told me".

sorry, I beg to differ, because the "of" in "in spite of" is still preposition, just like despite.

I tried googling "despite wh-", there are a lot of them. I am wondering why....:-?

 

[Barb_D]

Strictly speaking "despite what you have told me" is not really correct, it should be "in spite of what you have told me".

I've always regarded them as synonyms. Could you help me see the difference?

 

[corum]

Despite vs In spite of - e Learn English Language

 

[TheParser]

Aloha, good morning.
We eat out despite (the fact) that it is snowing.
But for (the fact) that the resue team had came to me, I would have died already.

Can I omit "the fact" above because that-clause is noun already after preposition?
It's seek time.thanks no end.

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Good morning, Atom1995.

(1) The other posters have certainly taught me a lot.

(2) May I give you my tiny contribution?

(3) NO, you may NOT omit "the fact."

(a) Your sentence is basically: We eat out despite the fact.

(b) Of course, your listener would ask, "Excuse me. What fact?"

(c) You would then add: It is snowing.

(d) As my favorite books tell me:


(i) It is snowing = noun clause acting as an appositive to the word "fact."

(ii) We eat out despite the fact (it is snowing).

(iii) To make it more formal, you may introduce the noun clause with "that," which some books call an "expletive." It means absolutely nothing:

We eat out despite the fact (that + it is snowing).

(4) As the other posters told you, if you don't want to use "the fact," you will have to rewrite your sentence with a conjunction:

We eat out even though it is snowing.

Although it is snowing, we eat out.

(5) Or just use a preposition:

Despite the snow, we eat out.

Have a nice day!

 

[corum]

Your sentence is basically: We eat out despite the fact.

It is snowing = noun clause acting as an appositive to the word "fact."

Agreed, reduced apposition. It reduces the scope of reference. Which fact?

We eat out despite something, despite what is expressed in the proposition "It is snowing" in the form of a 'that (nominal) clause'.

I still can't see why we pass beyond the boundaries of English grammar.

 

[corum]

1. My Brother Joseph is a nice guy. :tick:
My brother is a nice guy. :tick:
Joseph is a nice guy. :tick:

2. We eat out despite the fact that it is snowing. :tick:
We eat out despite that it is snowing. = Joseph is a nice guy.

Joseph reduces the scope of reference of 'My brother'. I have more than one brother and I am talking about Joseph now. We can omit in sentence #1 what Joseph further defines: 'My brother'.

In analogy with this in sentence #2:
'that it is snowing' defines the reference of 'the fact' in the same way as 'Joseph' does. We can drop 'My brother', but can't we really drop 'the fact'?! Why?! Oh why?! :-(

 

[bhaisahab]

Strictly speaking "despite what you have told me" is not really correct, it should be "in spite of what you have told me".

I've always regarded them as synonyms. Could you help me see the difference?

Ok, I withdraw what I said, it can be used like that. I wouldn't though, it doesn't sound right to me. It can't however be used like this: "We eat out despite that it is snowing", neither can "despite" be reolaced with "in spite of" in that sentence.